lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 22 Aug 2020 10:33:26 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <>
To:     Jens Axboe <>
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: flag as supporting buffered async reads

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 03:26:35PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> Resending this one, as I've been carrying it privately since May. The
> >>> necessary bits are now upstream (and XFS/btrfs equiv changes as well),
> >>> please consider this one for 5.9. Thanks!
> >>
> >> The necessary commit only hit upstream as of 5.9-rc1, unless I'm
> >> missing something?  It's on my queue to send to Linus once I get my
> >> (late) ext4 primary pull request for 5.9.
> > 
> > Right, it went in at the start of the merge window for 5.9. Thanks Ted!
> Didn't see it in the queue that just sent in, is it still queued up?

It wasn't in the queue which I queued up because that was based on
5.8-rc4.  Linus was a bit grumpy (fairly so) because it was late, and
that's totally on me.

He has said that he's going to start ignoring pull requests that
aren't fixes only if this becomes a pattern, so while I can send him
another pull request which will just have that one change, there are
no guarantees he's going to take it at this late date.

Sorry, when you sent me the commit saying that the changes that were
needed were already upstream on August 3rd, I thought that meant that
they were aready in Linus's tree.  I should have checked and noticed
that that in fact "ext4: flag as supporting buffered async reads"
wasn't compiling against Linus's upstream tree, so I didn't realize
this needed to be handled as a special case during the merge window.


					- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists